HC dismisses PIL for guidelines to protect artistes, public speakers like Kamra

Kunal Kamra, an aggrieved person, has approached a court in Chennai and this high court seeking various reliefs. He is neither illiterate nor so destitute that he is prevented from approaching this court. Why are you espousing this cause

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) which had sought the setting up of guidelines to prevent arbitrary First Information Reports (FIRs) against artistes and public speakers, like Kunal Kamra, who are engaged in satire and political criticism.

HC dismisses PIL for guidelines to protect artistes, public speakers like Kamra

“Kunal Kamra, an aggrieved person, has approached a court in Chennai and this high court seeking various reliefs. He is neither illiterate nor so destitute that he is prevented from approaching this court. Why are you espousing this cause,” the court asked advocate Amit Katarnaware, appearing for the PIL petitioner, a second-year law student.

To this, Katarnaware replied, “After the incident (Kamra’s parody song and the ransacking of the performance venue), the chief minister issued a statement that those found repeating or reposting the song will be proceeded against. There is a sense of apprehension amongst the people.” Public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, however, retorted that there was not a single incident where a person who reposted the parody song has been arrested.

The PIL was filed in the wake of an FIR registered against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and sought a declaration that his speech was protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

The controversy revolved around Kamra’s satirical song, which was a modified version of a Hindi track from the 1997 film Dil Toh Pagal Hai. The parody song which criticized the 2022 rebellion led by Eknath Shinde against Uddhav Thackeray and his eventual ascension to the chief minister’s post with the BJP’s backing, sparked strong reactions.

After a video of the song was uploaded on YouTube, Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised Habitat studio in Khar where the show was recorded.

The petitioner contended that Kamra’s speech falls within the ambit of satire and political criticism, both of which are protected under constitutional free speech. The plea highlighted the fundamental role of political humour and satire in a democracy and argues that restrictions on such expressions amount to suppression of free speech.

The PIL sought guidelines to prevent arbitrary FIRs against artists and public speakers unless their speech incites violence as well as protection for individuals who liked, shared, or tweeted Kamra’s video.

The PIL highlighted the growing concerns over the use of criminal laws to stifle dissent and criticizes the alleged misuse of state machinery to target political satirists. The petitioner had argued that a legal framework is necessary to distinguish between lawful political criticism and speech that genuinely incites violence, thereby ensuring that democratic freedoms remain intact.